Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 392 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
Cannibal72 said:
rhubroma said:
Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.

His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
And Kruijswijk's lead owed a healthy amount to Nibali's mechanical, which he had no control over at all. That wouldn't have been an amputated win?
People will go to ridiculous levels, riders crash, they have mechanicals, injuries, sickness etc. When does the crash need to occur to sully another riders win? stage 19 / 18 / 17 / 16 even before? does the downed rider need to be leading the race? some are even talking about a rider who didn't even get past stage 10 and was behind at the time. If a rider is at fault for his own crash but we make such allowances for the outcome do we do the same if the fault for lost time is a hunger knock? or if he has illness but can continue?

Nibali won a race without any outside interference effecting the outcome, sure people can discuss imaginary scenarios but these shouldn't be used to try and discredit the actual outcome and victory.
For the record I have "no problem" with the win. He won, this is a fact. But your argument is spurious and you know it.

When a rider crashes with an almost 5 min. lead in the climatic moments...well then that says something about the fortune of he who was able to win. No tears, no shouting in the wind, though we have to admit that the winner won, because his rival was eliminated from the competition.

This doesn't make the win less of a victory, though it does qualify it, otherwise it's the same as winning without amputation.
You say that Nibali's 'rival was eliminated from the competition' which is ambiguous, from my view he eliminated himself which is a difference. Now, you read an arguement where there was none and decided to take rise rather than answer so let me ask you (and please see this as conversation without ruffling your own feathers)

If a rider loses time by carelessly crashing by himself, or loses time by not eating/drinking correctly throughout the stage or loses time through illness from the night before, do you see these as all being the same? if the leader loses a 4 minute lead in a closing stage to his competitors due to such a discernible cause is this enough for your asterisk?
Whatever. I think your take is rather vile.

If, say, there is a rider in Yellow come July with a commanding lead, but falls off in the closing stages allowing someone else to win, it's not the same type of cycling outcome as if his opponent made it up on his legs.

Having followed cycling since the early 80's, I've always thought this way and so too has everybody I've known and raced against who knows anything about the sport.
 
Debating what Contador and Froome could do in 2014's Tour against Nibali is a useless debate, especially when trying to declare that they could win/lose time to him.
Nibali was in the best form of his life, but we have to take into consideration that he wasn't attacked a single time since Contador made love with the ground. If he were attacked, especially by Froome and Contador, would he still be able to produce the same watts?
I'm asking this because of 2 points:
- 1st: he had the time to rest (since he wasn't attacked and his competition was 2 or 3 steps below Contador, him and Froome), so he could exert more energy when needed;
- 2nd: if he was attacked several times (which would happen if we didn't witness the DNF from his principal rivals), would he be able to hang on, or to get them by riding at his own pace? Let's just remember that Contador and Froome have a faster acceleration than Nibali.
 
Re:

lenric said:
Debating what Contador and Froome could do in 2014's Tour against Nibali is a useless debate, especially when trying to declare that they could win/lose time to him.
Nibali was in the best form of his life, but we have to take into consideration that he wasn't attacked a single time since Contador made love with the ground. If he were attacked, especially by Froome and Contador, would he still be able to produce the same watts?
I'm asking this because of 2 points:
- 1st: he had the time to rest (since he wasn't attacked and his competition was 2 or 3 steps below Contador, him and Froome), so he could exert more energy when needed;
- 2nd: if he was attacked several times (which would happen if we didn't witness the DNF from his principal rivals), would he be able to hang on, or to get them by riding at his own pace? Let's just remember that Contador and Froome have a faster acceleration than Nibali.
The answer to your questions are unknown. However, it's safe to say that Froome on last year's performance would likely not have lost the time on the cobbles people thought he would have at the time. Whereas Froome in the mountains would have been on his game and it's dificult to believe Nibali would have ridden away like he did against the remaining, second tier competition. Idem for Contador, who was also in the shape of his life...but these things have been said many times before.

The point is not about speculating on what "would have been," because of the crashes, but "what was negated" because of the crashes. Anybody following the sport with even a modicum of passion, can't deny that the 2014 Tour was "amputated." And there Nibali certainly wasn't the valorous rider who put his rivals on the edge making them fall. No, he was merely damn lucky. In any case, the race lost its luster the moment Froome and then Contador were out. Hence crashes are the worst possible way to arrive at a determined "cycling outcome."
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Nibali discussion thread

And for an alternative take to philosopher Kwibus, see David Hume on causation. In brief, an understanding of how the world works is unobtainable for those unwilling to engage in 'what if' reasoning.
 
Re: Nibali discussion thread

SeriousSam said:
And for an alternative take to philosopher Kwibus, see David Hume on causation. In brief, an understanding of how the world works is unobtainable for those unwilling to engage in 'what if' reasoning.
What if reasoning can be useful, but not when it's about what if Landa wouldn't get ill. Seriously.....
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
lenric said:
Debating what Contador and Froome could do in 2014's Tour against Nibali is a useless debate, especially when trying to declare that they could win/lose time to him.
Nibali was in the best form of his life, but we have to take into consideration that he wasn't attacked a single time since Contador made love with the ground. If he were attacked, especially by Froome and Contador, would he still be able to produce the same watts?
I'm asking this because of 2 points:
- 1st: he had the time to rest (since he wasn't attacked and his competition was 2 or 3 steps below Contador, him and Froome), so he could exert more energy when needed;
- 2nd: if he was attacked several times (which would happen if we didn't witness the DNF from his principal rivals), would he be able to hang on, or to get them by riding at his own pace? Let's just remember that Contador and Froome have a faster acceleration than Nibali.
The answer to your questions are unknown. However, it's safe to say that Froome on last year's performance would likely not have lost the time on the cobbles people thought he would have at the time. Whereas Froome in the mountains would have been on his game and it's dificult to believe Nibali would have ridden away like he did against the remaining, second tier competition. Idem for Contador, who was also in the shape of his life...but these things have been said many times before.

The point is not about speculating on what "would have been," because of the crashes, but "what was negated" because of the crashes. Anybody following the sport with even a modicum of passion, can't deny that the 2014 Tour was "amputated." And there Nibali certainly wasn't the valorous rider who put his rivals on the edge making them fall. No, he was merely damn lucky. In any case, the race lost its luster the moment Froome and then Contador were out. Hence crashes are the worst possible way to arrive at a determined "cycling outcome."
100% agreed. Like it has already been said, the dimension of your victory is measured by the greatness of your rivals.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
You say that Nibali's 'rival was eliminated from the competition' which is ambiguous, from my view he eliminated himself which is a difference. Now, you read an arguement where there was none and decided to take rise rather than answer so let me ask you (and please see this as conversation without ruffling your own feathers)

If a rider loses time by carelessly crashing by himself, or loses time by not eating/drinking correctly throughout the stage or loses time through illness from the night before, do you see these as all being the same? if the leader loses a 4 minute lead in a closing stage to his competitors due to such a discernible cause is this enough for your asterisk?
Whatever. I think your take is rather vile.

If, say, there is a rider in Yellow come July with a commanding lead, but falls off in the closing stages allowing someone else to win, it's not the same type of cycling outcome as if his opponent made it up on his legs.

Having followed cycling since the early 80's, I've always thought this way and so too has everybody I've known and raced against who knows anything about the sport.
Oh dear, again you reply to my post, again you get needlessly upset and again you avoid making your case known and instead make a redudant statement.

Your second paragraph is not in dispute, never was, I asked you to go into further detail about what is required in your opinion for you to start handing out asterisks against legitimate victories. Now, if you read this, you do not have to post a reply but if you do it should be of relevance.
 
Re: Re:

The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
You say that Nibali's 'rival was eliminated from the competition' which is ambiguous, from my view he eliminated himself which is a difference. Now, you read an arguement where there was none and decided to take rise rather than answer so let me ask you (and please see this as conversation without ruffling your own feathers)

If a rider loses time by carelessly crashing by himself, or loses time by not eating/drinking correctly throughout the stage or loses time through illness from the night before, do you see these as all being the same? if the leader loses a 4 minute lead in a closing stage to his competitors due to such a discernible cause is this enough for your asterisk?
Whatever. I think your take is rather vile.

If, say, there is a rider in Yellow come July with a commanding lead, but falls off in the closing stages allowing someone else to win, it's not the same type of cycling outcome as if his opponent made it up on his legs.

Having followed cycling since the early 80's, I've always thought this way and so too has everybody I've known and raced against who knows anything about the sport.
Oh dear, again you reply to my post, again you get needlessly upset and again you avoid making your case known and instead make a redudant statement.

Your second paragraph is not in dispute, never was, I asked you to go into further detail about what is required in your opinion for you to start handing out asterisks against legitimate victories. Now, if you read this, you do not have to post a reply but if you do it should be of relevance.
Oh dear, really can't help you with that one. It has nothing to do with what I think are "legitimate" victories, or not, but what objectively winning under such circumstances signifies for the win as such.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
You say that Nibali's 'rival was eliminated from the competition' which is ambiguous, from my view he eliminated himself which is a difference. Now, you read an arguement where there was none and decided to take rise rather than answer so let me ask you (and please see this as conversation without ruffling your own feathers)

If a rider loses time by carelessly crashing by himself, or loses time by not eating/drinking correctly throughout the stage or loses time through illness from the night before, do you see these as all being the same? if the leader loses a 4 minute lead in a closing stage to his competitors due to such a discernible cause is this enough for your asterisk?
Whatever. I think your take is rather vile.

If, say, there is a rider in Yellow come July with a commanding lead, but falls off in the closing stages allowing someone else to win, it's not the same type of cycling outcome as if his opponent made it up on his legs.

Having followed cycling since the early 80's, I've always thought this way and so too has everybody I've known and raced against who knows anything about the sport.
Oh dear, again you reply to my post, again you get needlessly upset and again you avoid making your case known and instead make a redudant statement.

Your second paragraph is not in dispute, never was, I asked you to go into further detail about what is required in your opinion for you to start handing out asterisks against legitimate victories. Now, if you read this, you do not have to post a reply but if you do it should be of relevance.
Oh dear, really can't help you with that one. It has nothing to do with what I think are "legitimate" victories, or not, but what objectively winning under such circumstances signifies for the win as such.
You can't explain your own opinion on the criteria which you set for awarding an asterisk against a victory? fair enough.
 
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.
Why do you struggle so? your opinion on Nibali's victory has been made clear countless times over, what I have asked of you is your opinion on whether you would still apply the asterisk if the time lost by Kruijswijk had been brought about by hunger knock or by illness or by injury?

This was the question I asked on Friday and you have replied to me on a number of occasions with some redundant posts with little to do with my query? I doubt the problem lies with your comprehension but perhaps your reluctance which is baffling as it's only an opinion. Now with a little civility rather than your petulance you may try again if you wish.
 
Re: Re:

The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.
Why do you struggle so? your opinion on Nibali's victory has been made clear countless times over, what I have asked of you is your opinion on whether you would still apply the asterisk if the time lost by Kruijswijk had been brought about by hunger knock or by illness or by injury?

This was the question I asked on Friday and you have replied to me on a number of occasions with some redundant posts with little to do with my query? I doubt the problem lies with your comprehension but perhaps your reluctance which is baffling as it's only an opinion. Now with a little civility rather than your petulance you may try again if you wish.
Snide remarks are, well, snide remarks.

Your "query" doesn't interest me, since it is neither here nor there. Everything else is just passive aggressive drivel, other than "petulance."

My "opinion?" That's your opinion.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.
I think we can all agree that a giant snake would have made this Giro even more interesting.
 
Re:

I'm not sure when or where did you get the concept of *fortune*, but I wouldn't be surprised it you got it from "Wheel of Fortune".


rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.
Why do you struggle so? your opinion on Nibali's victory has been made clear countless times over, what I have asked of you is your opinion on whether you would still apply the asterisk if the time lost by Kruijswijk had been brought about by hunger knock or by illness or by injury?

This was the question I asked on Friday and you have replied to me on a number of occasions with some redundant posts with little to do with my query? I doubt the problem lies with your comprehension but perhaps your reluctance which is baffling as it's only an opinion. Now with a little civility rather than your petulance you may try again if you wish.
Snide remarks are, well, snide remarks.

Your "query" doesn't interest me, since it is neither here nor there. Everything else is just passive aggressive drivel, other than "petulance."

My "opinion?" That's your opinion.
So after half-dozen of your misguided replies over two days you finally muster "I decline" but in a much more crass manner. Very well.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
lenric said:
Debating what Contador and Froome could do in 2014's Tour against Nibali is a useless debate, especially when trying to declare that they could win/lose time to him.
Nibali was in the best form of his life, but we have to take into consideration that he wasn't attacked a single time since Contador made love with the ground. If he were attacked, especially by Froome and Contador, would he still be able to produce the same watts?
I'm asking this because of 2 points:
- 1st: he had the time to rest (since he wasn't attacked and his competition was 2 or 3 steps below Contador, him and Froome), so he could exert more energy when needed;
- 2nd: if he was attacked several times (which would happen if we didn't witness the DNF from his principal rivals), would he be able to hang on, or to get them by riding at his own pace? Let's just remember that Contador and Froome have a faster acceleration than Nibali.
The answer to your questions are unknown. However, it's safe to say that Froome on last year's performance would likely not have lost the time on the cobbles people thought he would have at the time. Whereas Froome in the mountains would have been on his game and it's dificult to believe Nibali would have ridden away like he did against the remaining, second tier competition. Idem for Contador, who was also in the shape of his life...but these things have been said many times before.

The point is not about speculating on what "would have been," because of the crashes, but "what was negated" because of the crashes. Anybody following the sport with even a modicum of passion, can't deny that the 2014 Tour was "amputated." And there Nibali certainly wasn't the valorous rider who put his rivals on the edge making them fall. No, he was merely damn lucky. In any case, the race lost its luster the moment Froome and then Contador were out. Hence crashes are the worst possible way to arrive at a determined "cycling outcome."
This. Nibali would undoubtedly have gained time on Froome, but I highly doubt Froome would have finished with Contador. Porte finished 2'11 down while Contador finished 2'54 down. But Porte was single handedly towed away from Contador by Thomas. Froome is heavier than Porte, and although the cobbles last year were pathetically easy, Froome was near the front all day and was on the offensive. Nibali looked more comfortable than Froome, but Froome did look more comfortable than all the other contenders bar Nibali. Even Valverde wasn't as convincing as Froome last year.

Now consider the cobbles squad Sky had at the 2014 Tour, and the way Thomas hauled Porte up the GC on that stage. Replace Porte with Froome, and worst case scenario you're looking at where Porte finished. This is despite the Thomas/Porte move coming very late after a long time of re-organising within Sky.

So basically, Froome would have been 1-2 mins down on Nibali after the cobbled stage, and past results suggest Froome could have been able to gain this time on Nibali in the 54km TT alone, never mind the fact that Froome is the superior climber.
 
Jun 5, 2016
2
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
rhubroma said:
lenric said:
Debating what Contador and Froome could do in 2014's Tour against Nibali is a useless debate, especially when trying to declare that they could win/lose time to him.
Nibali was in the best form of his life, but we have to take into consideration that he wasn't attacked a single time since Contador made love with the ground. If he were attacked, especially by Froome and Contador, would he still be able to produce the same watts?
I'm asking this because of 2 points:
- 1st: he had the time to rest (since he wasn't attacked and his competition was 2 or 3 steps below Contador, him and Froome), so he could exert more energy when needed;
- 2nd: if he was attacked several times (which would happen if we didn't witness the DNF from his principal rivals), would he be able to hang on, or to get them by riding at his own pace? Let's just remember that Contador and Froome have a faster acceleration than Nibali.
The answer to your questions are unknown. However, it's safe to say that Froome on last year's performance would likely not have lost the time on the cobbles people thought he would have at the time. Whereas Froome in the mountains would have been on his game and it's dificult to believe Nibali would have ridden away like he did against the remaining, second tier competition. Idem for Contador, who was also in the shape of his life...but these things have been said many times before.

The point is not about speculating on what "would have been," because of the crashes, but "what was negated" because of the crashes. Anybody following the sport with even a modicum of passion, can't deny that the 2014 Tour was "amputated." And there Nibali certainly wasn't the valorous rider who put his rivals on the edge making them fall. No, he was merely damn lucky. In any case, the race lost its luster the moment Froome and then Contador were out. Hence crashes are the worst possible way to arrive at a determined "cycling outcome."
This. Nibali would undoubtedly have gained time on Froome, but I highly doubt Froome would have finished with Contador. Porte finished 2'11 down while Contador finished 2'54 down. But Porte was single handedly towed away from Contador by Thomas. Froome is heavier than Porte, and although the cobbles last year were pathetically easy, Froome was near the front all day and was on the offensive. Nibali looked more comfortable than Froome, but Froome did look more comfortable than all the other contenders bar Nibali. Even Valverde wasn't as convincing as Froome last year.

Now consider the cobbles squad Sky had at the 2014 Tour, and the way Thomas hauled Porte up the GC on that stage. Replace Porte with Froome, and worst case scenario you're looking at where Porte finished. This is despite the Thomas/Porte move coming very late after a long time of re-organising within Sky.

So basically, Froome would have been 1-2 mins down on Nibali after the cobbled stage, and past results suggest Froome could have been able to gain this time on Nibali in the 54km TT alone, never mind the fact that Froome is the superior climber.

I don't think Froome would've been able to take back 2 minutes on Nibali in the final TT because Nibali did a great one. 4th at 1m58 from Tony Martin and only 20 secs down on Dumoulin.
And Nibali did that kind of TT having nothing to gain so if Froome had been there, I don't think he would've gained that much time on Nibali.
I won't talk about the climbing stuff because that'd just be complete fantasy cycling.
 

rm7

Mar 14, 2015
964
0
0
Have this guy actually ever beat either Froome, Contador or Quintana on a MTF? spare me the T-A stage in 2013. A proper mountain battle?

This guy is in a league of his own. Between the best and the second tiers.
 
Re: Re:

Louaja89 said:
PremierAndrew said:
rhubroma said:
lenric said:
Debating what Contador and Froome could do in 2014's Tour against Nibali is a useless debate, especially when trying to declare that they could win/lose time to him.
Nibali was in the best form of his life, but we have to take into consideration that he wasn't attacked a single time since Contador made love with the ground. If he were attacked, especially by Froome and Contador, would he still be able to produce the same watts?
I'm asking this because of 2 points:
- 1st: he had the time to rest (since he wasn't attacked and his competition was 2 or 3 steps below Contador, him and Froome), so he could exert more energy when needed;
- 2nd: if he was attacked several times (which would happen if we didn't witness the DNF from his principal rivals), would he be able to hang on, or to get them by riding at his own pace? Let's just remember that Contador and Froome have a faster acceleration than Nibali.
The answer to your questions are unknown. However, it's safe to say that Froome on last year's performance would likely not have lost the time on the cobbles people thought he would have at the time. Whereas Froome in the mountains would have been on his game and it's dificult to believe Nibali would have ridden away like he did against the remaining, second tier competition. Idem for Contador, who was also in the shape of his life...but these things have been said many times before.

The point is not about speculating on what "would have been," because of the crashes, but "what was negated" because of the crashes. Anybody following the sport with even a modicum of passion, can't deny that the 2014 Tour was "amputated." And there Nibali certainly wasn't the valorous rider who put his rivals on the edge making them fall. No, he was merely damn lucky. In any case, the race lost its luster the moment Froome and then Contador were out. Hence crashes are the worst possible way to arrive at a determined "cycling outcome."
This. Nibali would undoubtedly have gained time on Froome, but I highly doubt Froome would have finished with Contador. Porte finished 2'11 down while Contador finished 2'54 down. But Porte was single handedly towed away from Contador by Thomas. Froome is heavier than Porte, and although the cobbles last year were pathetically easy, Froome was near the front all day and was on the offensive. Nibali looked more comfortable than Froome, but Froome did look more comfortable than all the other contenders bar Nibali. Even Valverde wasn't as convincing as Froome last year.

Now consider the cobbles squad Sky had at the 2014 Tour, and the way Thomas hauled Porte up the GC on that stage. Replace Porte with Froome, and worst case scenario you're looking at where Porte finished. This is despite the Thomas/Porte move coming very late after a long time of re-organising within Sky.

So basically, Froome would have been 1-2 mins down on Nibali after the cobbled stage, and past results suggest Froome could have been able to gain this time on Nibali in the 54km TT alone, never mind the fact that Froome is the superior climber.

I don't think Froome would've been able to take back 2 minutes on Nibali in the final TT because Nibali did a great one. 4th at 1m58 from Tony Martin and only 20 secs down on Dumoulin.
And Nibali did that kind of TT having nothing to gain so if Froome had been there, I don't think he would've gained that much time on Nibali.
I won't talk about the climbing stuff because that'd just be complete fantasy cycling.
Martin was at a much lower level in 2014 than in 2013, while until 2015, Froome was probably a better TTist than Dumoulin. It's important to bare in mind that in the 2013 Tour, Martin had an injured wrist on the TT where Froome nearly beat him, but past results suggest that Froome would have had a similar time to Dumoulin worst case scenario.

As for Nibali having nothing to gain, well he still went all out in that TT. And he would have been much more tired going into that TT if he had to respond to attacks from CF and AC instead of just coasting up those climbs at his own will.

Don't get me wrong, Nibali stayed on his bike, while Froome and Contador didn't, and Nibali was best of the rest. So he deserved victory. But I really don't think he would have won the 2014 Tour if CF hadn't crashed out, and probably AC too
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
2
0
The way Froome was riding he'd have lost 2-5 minutes on the cobbles stage, the guy sucked that year.

Nibali had attacked from over 10km out on Hautacam the day before, so he was tired for the TT. And I doubt he took many risks there.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts